Total Visits

Sunday, 24 December 2017

Earlier
this year one of our activists, who was thinking of standing in the General
Election in the Bradford area, and who not unreasonably thought that West Yorkshire's Jews might feel
particularly beleaguered in Bradford, approached the Jewish community leaders to
see whether there might be common ground. The story is best told in her own
words:-

I met on Sunday 4th June at Starbuck’s
in Bradford Centenary Square, with Laurence Saffer, (pictured above) President of Leeds Jewish
Representative Council (part of the Board of Deputies of British Jews), Rabbi Rudi
Levi, Chairman of the Bradford Synagogue, and a lady whose name I cannot
recollect.

I was surprised to find that three people had come
to meet me as I thought I was just meeting Laurence Saffer believing him to be
the Rabbi of the Bradford Synagogue.

We began by introducing ourselves and I explained
my background and why I was keen to hopefully establish links between our
organisations.

Laurence Saffer explained that they have a policy
of not working with extremist groups such as the BNP and National Front, but
that they do invite guests from other political parties to speak at various
conferences and events; and provide support for candidates standing in
elections.

I found this reassuring and then was completely
taken aback when the tone of the conversation began to change. Laurence Saffer
drew a copy of our manifesto from his briefcase, slapping it down on the table,
and stated that he could not possibly sell me or my party to the Board of Deputy
of British Jews, based on what he had read, as he felt that I was a racist and I
belonged to a racist party. (This section of the manifesto is intended to make clear the rights of the English Nation to our historic culture in our country by giving primacy to our indigenous English culture in England as opposed to the multi-culturalist idea that English culture and our Society’s integrity must give way to the interests of a "diversity" non-English communities).

Obviously, I responded with a firm rebuttal of his
claims and Rabbi Rudi Levi was a little more conciliatory – he was an elderly
gentleman who seemed to be more approachable.

He asked our views on shechita slaughter and
labelling of foods where I mentioned the findings of the FAWC Report several
years ago, and that I felt there was a need to debate the issue of pre-stunning
of animals before slaughter and the need for more transparent labelling. I also
mentioned the fact that some Muslims in Australia and in parts of Europe had
developed a form of pre-stunning which complied with their religious beliefs and
that perhaps this was something both the Muslim and Jewish communities could
think of adopting.

We all agreed that a person’s motivation for
questioning these religious practices was important and I stressed that, for my
part at least, it came purely from an ethical perspective regarding animal
welfare.

I was asked further about our position regarding
circumcision and other Jewish religious beliefs and assured them that there was
no problem regarding these matters and that they had nothing to fear from
us.

Laurence Saffer, however, became increasingly
condescending and belligerent pointing repeatedly at several clauses in the
party manifesto which he claimed he had real issues over and had highlighted
with asterisks.

He physically pointed to clause 3.15.13.2 and
other clauses he had marked with an asterisk regarding radical Islam which it
mentioned the figures about the minuscule number of mosques which identified as
moderate.

I admitted that I couldn’t recall this specific
clause, that it would have been adopted before Veritas merged with the English
Democrats but that it seemed to have a credible source and was therefore a
reasonable position to take.

Sadly, this gave him more reason to be
belligerent, exhorting that I, as Deputy Chairman should know
precisely what was in our manifesto and that my reply simply wasn’t good
enough.

Laurence Saffer also criticised our policy on
asylum seekers and refugees and highlighted, for particular criticism, our
position on withdrawing from the 1951 UN Convention of Human Rights, contrasting
this to the Kindertransport programme during WW2.

Rabbi Rudi Levi was interested to know why this
was our policy and was subsequently more understanding of the explanation I
provided. Laurence Saffer, however, sadly remained rather infuriated regardless
and not open to debate on these issues. (Given what I know now that he is an
Immigration and Asylum judge in Leeds, it is not surprising).

There were several further clauses, one which was
rather badly drafted, 3.15.12.3 – 2 and 3.15.12.3 – 3, II referring to the
admission and deportation of those we believed did not conform to English values
and to our policy regarding establishing a programme of education for Islamic
community leaders and Imams which might extend to other religions causing
concern, to which Laurence Saffer again took issue.

The latter policy where it states ‘…and extend
this to other religions causing concern’ was a serious point of contention as I
had to concede after some persuasion, that it could also apply to the Jewish
community – although I was keen to point out that that would not have been the
intent.

We had a brief discussion on the work that the
Jewish community does in Leeds and surrounding area promoting community cohesion
and inter-faith dialogue, especially with the Muslim community. I told him that
when I used to teach RE in Bradford I had encouraged this kind of work and
dialogue and thought that we had found some common ground at last.

At some point in the conversation Laurence Saffer
asked how large I thought the Muslim and Jewish populations were in Bradford and
appeared to argue that it was vital that they worked with the Muslim community
for their survival, as the Muslim population already outnumbered the Jewish
community in the Bradford area by 50-1.

Then the conversation moved to the Labour MP for
Bradford West, Naz Shah, who was apparently saved from being expelled from the
Labour party for her alleged anti-Semitism due to their intervention - and
tuition. To my surprise, Mr Saffer was keen to point out that they were
supporting her candidature in the general election. I found this very
disconcerting as I couldn’t believe just how naïve and foolish they were being
given her clear anti-Semitic views.

Laurence Saffer then decided that they had to go,
put the copy of our manifesto back in his briefcase, got up from the table and
walked away without shaking my hand. His two colleagues were polite and shook
hands. I assured them that they were mistaken about who I was and what I stood
for and we left things open for me to contact Laurence Saffer should I wish to
do so.

I came away feeling completely humiliated and
belittled and betrayed as I have spent my life fighting anti-Semitism and
injustice and felt I had something to offer in support of the Jewish
community.

I
didn’t think that something so outrageous should be left unchallenged and
therefore wrote the following letter to the British Board of Jewish
Deputies:-

Dear Sirs

Re: Complaint against
Laurence Saffer

We act for Mrs H. We write to make
a complaint against Laurence Saffer arising out of an incident on the
4th June 2017.

Mrs H. has set out what happened in
some detail in her Witness Statement, a copy of which we enclose for your
information. I hope you will agree that the behaviour complained of is
unacceptable and should be sanctioned. Please confirm receipt.

We await hearing from you on the
steps you propose to take to deal with the complaint.

I refer to your letter to the Board of Deputies of British
Jews dated 27 November and to our telephone conversation today. I write in my
capacity as the chairman of the Board’s constitution committee, which is
responsible for its code of conduct and dealing with breaches of that
code.

Your client, Mrs H., in her statement, describes an incident
involving Laurence Saffer which she says took place on 4 June, I assume this
year. On her behalf you ask the Board to sanction Mr Saffer’s
behaviour.

Mr Saffer was the Deputy for Leeds Jewish Representative
Council until he resigned in January 2017, a date prior to the alleged incident,
and as such the Board has no jurisdiction to deal with this
matter.

Thank you for your email of the 11th and for
responding to my letter dated the 27th November. It is correct that
the incident was on the 4th June this year.

However as of the 30th May 2017 Mr Saffer was
using the email address PresidentLJRC@mail.com and the Leeds Jewish
Representative Council has him on their website as President. Here is a link to
that website >>> http://ljrc.org/about-us-2/meet-the-ljrc-team/

Please could you therefore review your stance?

Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook

To
which the reply was:-

Dear Mr
Tilbrook,

The relevant dates
are those when Mr Saffer was a Deputy of the Board of Deputies of British Jews,
as set out in my earlier email. The email address he was using is not what
matters.

It is only to members
of the Board of Deputies, and not of other entities, to which the code of
conduct applies.

So that seems the end of the road for the complaint and no attempt to distance the Board of Deputies from what Mr Saffer said.

This is what the Jewish Leadership Council website says about Laurence Saffer:-

Laurence Saffer has lived in Leeds all his life and has been involved in a number of communal groups over the years, including Habonim Dror.

As LJRC president, Laurence aims to ensure that the voice of all parts of the Leeds Jewish community and surrounding areas is heard and acted upon by all local decision makers, and that the Jewish community continues to be loud and proud. Laurence is also a judge who sits in Bradford and London.

The Habonim Dror claims to be:-

A Socialist Zionist Culturally Jewish youth movement. Through a progressive lens we create a culture and educate based on our worldly values of equality.

Habonim Dror has been pioneering the future of the Jewish people for over 85 years internationally and is continuing to do so in a fun and engaging way. We do this through weekly activities, residential weekends, Day-Schemes, Israel programs and Summer Camp.

Thursday, 14 December 2017

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE EU/UK TRADE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS?

When trying to work out what the British Establishment are up to in the Brexit negotiations it is worth bearing in mind that all the members of Theresa May’s Government have made their political careers, at least in part, out of claiming that they were Eurosceptics. The reason for that was clearly revealed in the EU Referendum when it appeared that over 60% of Conservative Party members voted for Leave and over 60% of Conservative Party voters voted for Leave.

It follows that anybody who was aspiring to be a Conservative Parliamentary Candidate or Minister before the Referendum would have destroyed their career if they had admitted that they would do what they actually did do during the Referendum - which was vote for remaining within the EU! You cannot therefore trust at face value anything that these people say about their politics. Let’s therefore look at what they are actually doing.

In analysing this it is worth thinking what you would do if you were a Minister in a Government which was enthusiastically committed to exiting the EU. The first thing that you would do would be get all of the research done as to what the difficulties, bottlenecks and obstructions would be in fully exiting the EU. David Davis is the “Brexit” Minister. Davis in many respects is admirable, but he nevertheless showed his compromising character in dropping his previously vocal support for an English Parliament, when it looked possible that he might become Leader of the Conservative Party and he was told that the Conservative Party would not support that. This is the same David Davis who has now admitted that in fact the Government has not done any proper research on the consequences of leaving without a trade deal. He admitted that this had not been done because the Government has no intention of leaving without doing a trade deal. That is a highly revealing indication of the Government’s agenda from somebody who is supposed to be one of the keenest “Brexiteers”.

The second thing that you would of course have done was to have opened up negotiations with all those countries that are interested in doing a trade deal with us and also with the World Trade Organisation and any other entities that we will need to be dealing with immediately upon exiting the EU. None of this has been done! That is another highly revealing fact as to what the Government is actually up to.

Another thing that any Government truly committed to exiting would be at the very least thinking about doing is reverting to England’s historic, strategic and diplomatic position in trying to make sure that no one power dominated in Western Europe. At the moment that power is of course the EU and therefore a Government committed to exiting the EU would be looking for allies and working with any opportunity to break-up the EU block. Obviously that would have meant supporting Catalonia and using our potentially massive trade leverage with Southern Ireland to force them out of the EU. In addition we would of course be seeking to work with the European Free Trade Association, EFTA, to reinvigorate that as a block which could counter the EU. It hardly needs saying that none of that is being done and, indeed, Theresa May’s Government backed the Spanish repression of Catalonian Independence and has not even shown any support for the Eastern Europeans opposition to EU policies on mass immigration.

Last, but not least, a truly Brexit orientated Government would absolutely refuse to pay the EU a single penny that we didn’t owe them, let alone over £50 billion of English taxpayers’ money.

Let’s not forget that any talk of payments to remain within the EU single market is actually talk of the use of ordinary English taxpayers’ money to subsidise big business in maintaining their access to the EU markets. It is not as if membership of the EU single market is of net benefit to the UK already because although we can buy as consumers (if we have the money!) Audis, Mercedes Benz, etc without paying a tariff the fact is that not only do the Germans and the French, etc., sell us more cars than we sell them, but also there has been a balance of trade in favour of the EU for almost all the last 30 years. This means that actually when considered a national economy the EU profits more from UK trade than the UK profits from EU trade. It would also mean if we went to tariffs that substantially more tariffs would be paid to our Government than would have to be paid out to the EU. Concessions are therefore not being given in the interests of ordinary people, or of our Nation, they are being given in the interests of the Conservative Party’s backers in big business corporations and in the City.

So where are we going I hear you ask? I thought one of the most interesting conversations that I have heard recently was one in which it was being suggested that the Westminster rumour mill is talking about Theresa May having gamed the DUP into refusing any different treatment for Northern Ireland than for the rest of the UK over the proposal that Southern Ireland and the EU had signed off on, which was that Northern Ireland would retain “regulatory alignment”. The rumour is that Theresa May wanted the DUP to refuse that for Northern Ireland only so that she could apply pressure on members of the Cabinet to accept “regulatory alignment” for the whole of the UK. If that remains accepted then we will not have properly have left the EU. The only plus of that situation is that as Michael Gove has been saying, then we won’t be constitutionally part of the EU and that means that a future Government (with more spine than the current one) can change anything that is being agreed at this stage.

Tuesday, 12 December 2017

I am encouraging people to report every conceivably relevant instance as an Anti-English “Hate incident” or “Hate Crime” in order to flood the Hate Crime statistics and thus make the Police’s statistical results come out contrary to their intended PC narrative!

In particular what is clear from it is that if any of us state that we think we have been subjected to, or just that there has been (it doesn’t have to be against us as individuals), a “Hate Crime” or a “Hate Incident” against English nationalists, or against the English People or against Englishness etc., then the police now have to record it as such. If we can show that the incident is a crime then again they have to record it as a “Hate Crime”. In any case at the least it must be recorded as a “Hate Incident”.

The days of the police being able to say that they have any discretion not to record it are over.

I would suggest that therefore what we should quote the guidance to them and say is that we take the view that this is a hate incident then pursuant to the College of Policing’s “Hate Crime Operational Guidance”.

You can then say that the officer has no discretion and must record this as either a “Hate Incident” or a “Hate Crime”. Then say:- 'If you do not do so then I will take this matter up as a complaint against you personally.'

Then ask for the officer's badge number if they will not
do it and complain to his superior and, if necessary continue with the
complaint until fully satisfied!Here is the rule to quote.

Section number 1.2.3. Perception-based recording of hate crime

For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person (see 1.2.4 Other person), is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident.

Crimes and incidents must be correctly recorded if the police are to meet the objective of reducing under-reporting and improve understanding of the nature of hate crime. The alleged actions of the perpetrator must amount to a crime under normal crime recording rules. If this is the case, the perception of the victim, or any other person, will decide whether the crime is recorded as a hate crime. If the facts do not identify any recordable crime but the victim perceived it to be a hate crime, the circumstances should be recorded as a non-crime hate incident and not a hate crime.

Thursday, 7 December 2017

THERESA MAY TRUMPED ON ISLAMIST TERROR TWEETS BY TRUMP!

Sometimes there is justice in the world!

Theresa May, the Remainer politician, who has, like most of the Tories in Parliament made out throughout most of her political career that she is a Eurosceptic, but she was revealed, when the EU referendum came, to be the untruthful Remainer that we always suspected that she was really!

Theresa also makes out that, as a Church of England vicar’s daughter, she is a practicing Christian, whilst in fact she was the prime driver behind "gay marriage".

As Prime Minister Theresa rushed to welcome Trump when he was inaugurated as President, despite her private office having been very partisan against him in the Republican primaries and also in supporting Hilary Clinton in the actual election for the US presidency.

This, of course, is the very same Theresa May who has had the temerity to lecture Donald Trump on what he should tweet about Islamist threats!

(It is an interesting reflection on the great value of the American constitutional guarantee of the right to "Free Speech" that Ann Coulter and Trump and indeed any other Americans are free to re-tweet the videos or to make comments like Jayda Fransen has made, However because Miss Fransen has made those remarks within the UK she is being prosecuted for hate speech. How ironical that old phrase from Rule Britannia, “Briton’s never, never will be slaves” is now becoming!)

Well Theresa has been well and truly bitten now hasn’t she with Donald Trump’s response?

Theresa and some of her fellow Conservative MPs exposed themselves in their knee-jerk responses to be unpatriotic appeasers. Many of the same were exposed as “Brexit Mutineers” by the Daily Telegraph just a few weeks ago. Now here they are again standing shoulder to shoulder with Emily Thornberry, Yvette Cooper and Sadiq Khan. All of whom are yet again showing that they are more attached to multi-culturalism and Islamist appeasement than they are to acting in the best interests of our country - which is clearly to have the best possible relationship with the Government of the United States!

I doubt whether it is irrelevant that this spat took place at the very time when Theresa May and her Government are in the process of betraying the interests of the country over Brexit in offering to pay £50 billion of English Taxpayers' money to the EU simply for the privilege of being allowed to engage in trade negotiations, with no real prospect of those trade negotiations actually resulting in any trade agreement, let alone one which is advantageous to our Nation!

These people are not only hopelessly incompetent, but also are unpatriotic even to the UK.

Of course it goes without saying that they also all hate the very idea of England and of the English Nation!

Wednesday, 29 November 2017

Two
weeks ago the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic made the entirely credible
threat that, if the Irish Government didn’t get what they wanted in keeping an
open border with Northern Ireland, then they would veto any proposed EU trade
agreement with the United Kingdom.

The
reason that such a threat is entirely credible is that for any EU trade
agreement to be ratified it has to go through the process of ratification, not
only by the EU institutions, but also by all 27 remaining Member States of the
EU.

This
is part of the reason why the EU has been so very slow over the years at
entering into trade agreements. In the case of the trade agreement with Canada,
the vast majority of terms were agreed relatively quickly, but the ratification
was then held up for years because the Belgium Walloons were being difficult
about an obscure point and until they agreed the Belgium state could not ratify
the agreement.

We
may also have difficulty with the Walloons, who are, of course, notorious about
being difficult about almost everything. There has also been a direct threat
from Spain of vetoing any EU trade agreement with the EU unless they get what
they want over Gibraltar.

Then
in terms of troubles ahead there is the problem that Germany is currently
politically rudderless. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor for so many years is no
doubt focussing all her efforts on internal political considerations (and her
own future!) rather than thinking about issues relating to
Brexit!

As
things stand under Article 50 we are out of the EU in March 2019. That is just
16 months away!

Even
if we were already agreed on almost every aspect of the trade agreement
negotiations that would be an almost impossibly short period to succeed in
getting all the EU institutions and also all the Member States to all ratify the
agreement.

As
it is, we haven’t even begun the trade negotiations because of the EU’s approach
to negotiation - that the divorce package must be agreed before any trade
negotiations can begin. This negotiating approach was always intended to
minimise the British Government’s negotiating position.

The
EU will be left desperately short of money as a result of us, one of its major
cash cows, leaving the EU which is why they are trying to get us to agree to pay
a vast ransom before they will even agree to discuss any trade deal, so that we
cannot use our financial position to extract any concessions from
them.

In
addition to our financial position our Government’s negotiating team throughout
that the question of the EU migrants who are here would be helpful. In many
cases they are sending back to their home countries a significant proportion of
what they are earning, plus child benefit and other remittances which help keep
their home countries financially afloat.

Our
negotiating team also thought that it would help us that our security services
are more effective and sophisticated than most of the rest of the 27.

All
of these issues seemed to give potentially strong negotiating positions. That
is why all of which points the EUs current negotiating stance is intended to
strip away from us!

When
you couple all of this with the relative weakness and incoherence of Mrs May’s
Remainer dominated Government - it has never looked very likely that she was
going to be able to deliver a good deal on trading terms between us and the EU
countries!

If
the Irish deliver on their threat it would be politically impossible (not to
mention - politically suicidal!) for any British Government to negotiate away
the integrity of the United Kingdom, let alone a Conservative and Unionist Prime
Minister whose very Party, as it currently stands, was formed on the question of
Ireland in 1922 when Conservative and Unionist MPs came together in the original
1922 Committee to vote to withdraw from Lloyd George’s National Coalition over
the question of Ireland.

There
is also the electoral dynamic in the House of Commons which requires the support
of Arlene Foster’s Democratic Unionist Party who would not agree to what Ireland
is asking for anyway. So Mrs May’s Government has even less ability to agree
what Ireland is demanding than any other British Government would be able
to!

So
it would appear that no deal is really the most likely outcome.

If
Mrs May’s Government are really sensible it would be currently planning for that
and certainly not parting with any English Taxpayers’ money to buy the
possibility of having trade negotiations, when those trade negotiations are
clearly going to go nowhere in the long run.

Brexit,
membership of the EU and properly implementing the referendum decision combine
in a cluster of issues which are very important to a lot of people. They are
perhaps more important than traditional party loyalties. They also cut across
the line of the political spectrum represented by the Post War two party system
British Establishment Parties.

Therefore
we have a real prospect that the Remainiac manoeuvres that we see going on in
Parliament may lead to a smash for the Establishment. That means that there is
to a real prospect on re-alignment of the political spectrum, hopefully more in
accordance in delivering what ordinary people really want out of politics. In
my view, that is patriotism; coupled with welfare for our people; control on
immigration; coupled with higher wages for our people; support for traditional
values; an end to political correctness; integration not multi-culturalism; a
land in which there is room for difference and innovation; self-improvement
without the dead weight of bureaucratic “Equality and Diversity” quotas. In
short an England that would truly make you proud to be
English!

As
against that majority view we do, on one end of the spectrum, have perhaps no more
than 25,000 corporate globalists supporting the Tory Party, but they are armed with
vast resources and control of big business and much of the print media. On the
other end there are certainly no more than 600,000 internationalist, socialist,
statists supporting Labour again armed with influence in the state hierarchy, academia , teaching, Social work and in the
media - especially the BBC.

Friday, 17 November 2017

One thing that is all too obvious
when trying to deal with any part of Government these days is the striking
degree of incompetence. This may well be the result of the selection for jobs
by multi-culturist, PC tokenistic, tick-boxing rather than by trying to select the
best people for the job?

There is also, of course, the vast
and casual waste of taxpayers’ money!

One of the less remarked upon
things is the huge volume of unnecessary, overly prescriptive, complicated and
downright ineffective legislation that Parliament passes. It seems to be all
too prevalent that the qualification for being in our legislature is to be
utterly incompetent in dealing with any matter relating to the
Law!

I remember a few years Lord
Phillips of Sudbury, the Lib Dem Peer who had been a high quality solicitor in
private practice, retired from the Lords saying that he thought the whole thing
was pointless when our State is now passing over 10,000 pages of legislation
every single year?

The result of this deluge of
legislative verbal diarrhoea is that it is no longer possible for anyone to know
the law, let alone for any citizen to know where they stand as against the
State. The whole legal system has been swamped and is a muddle.

In a way nothing is better as an
example than the latest twittering amongst the twitterati about whether Article
50 of the Lisbon Treaty could be revoked and thus keep the UK within the EU and
block the EU referendum.

This is a typical example of our
political class’ incompetence. There are of course two bodies that have
jurisdiction on deciding this. One is Parliament. All the commentators who are
Remainers were gleeful about Gina Miller’s case being taken up to the Supreme
Court where there was a ruling that Parliament had to legislate in order for the
Government to be legally able to serve the Article 50 notice (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf . Bizarrely they are now claiming
that Parliament by mere resolution could overrule the effect of that Statute!
This is a basic error, not only of law, but of the constitution, since it is
elementary that no Parliamentary resolution can override a
statute.

So we have the amusing and
delightful situation where Remainer MPs are trapped by the Miller case, whereby
they cannot undo the Article 50 Notice at this end of the process without a
further Act of Parliament.

Realistically this is politically
impossible and would probably be ineffective in any case for reasons which I
will explain below.

The other jurisdiction and body
which would determine whether a revocation of the Article 50 Notice was valid is
the European Court of Justice. Whatever the EU Commissioner might think, or the
Council of European Union Governments or the EU Parliament think, the final word
would be with the European Court of Justice. That decision would probably take
5 years during which the situation of the UK would be in a permanent state of
uncertainty.

This Twitter stream has all been
brought on by the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, confirming what was logically
obvious, which is that the default position on whether there is a deal is that
there is no deal.

Given that the EU has set itself up
to be as difficult as possible in this negotiating process, they always made it
very likely that there would be no deal, but the Remainers seemed to think that
they were going to have some opportunity to decide whether or not whatever was
offered was going to be sufficient. David Davies confirmed that in the event
that Parliament rejected whatever deal was offered, then the effect would be
that there was no deal.

Since David Davis is likely not to
be bringing back very much in the way of a deal anyway we now have massive
inertia tending towards no deal from both the EU side and from the UK side.

Fortunately the effect of no deal
isn’t at all what the Remainers are saying. It is simply that we go into the
normal world trade on free trading terms and on a WTO basis, just like most of
the other countries that trade perfectly successfully with the EU.

The EU for their part also go onto
the same WTO terms with us. Since the balance of trade for the last 30 years
has been more or less constant in their favour it is right to say that the EU
will lose more than we will. Our Government receipts from their payment of
tariffs is likely to be much greater than the EU’s receipts from our tariffs.
Our profligate and wasteful Government might even be able to pay its way with a
balanced budget, at least for a little while, based upon these extra
receipts!

Wednesday, 1 November 2017

THE UPDATED DIFFERENCES IN UK GOVERNMENT FUNDING BETWEEN THE NATIONS OF THE UK

Back in 2009 the cross-bench independent House of Lords Committee enquiring into the Barnett Formula funding allocation system reported that England was subsidising Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to the tune of £49 billion a year.

Here is a link to that report >>> The Barnett Formula Report with Evidence published 17 July 2009

Given the years that have passed since I think it is worth reviewing what public spending is now in the 3 different Nations and in the Province of the United Kingdom. Here are the figures:-

THE PROVINCE OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Population 1.9 million

Public spending per head £14,018 (approx. £14,263 after deal)

Social security 43 per cent: local politicians effectively refused to approve benefit cuts in 2015 and received a £585 million package to soften the blow over four years

Health 19 per cent: funding cuts for GPs have forced some frontline services to be withdrawn and over 6,500 patients waited over 12 hours in A&E last year

Education 13 per cent: Northern Irish pupils are the highest performing in Europe at primary level for maths but a third of GCSE entrants do not achieve five A*-C grades

Public sector workers 25.2 per cent

Private sector workers 74.8 per cent

THE NATION OF ENGLAND

Population 55 million

Public spending per head £11,297

Social security 45 per cent: cuts to benefits have failed to offset the spiralling cost of pensions, which under the DUP deal will still be protected by the triple lock

Health 24 per cent: the Red Cross warned in January that NHS England faced a “humanitarian crisis” amid chronic bed and staff shortages and long waits for care

Education 14 per cent: Many schools are facing real-terms budget cuts under the government’s new funding formula and last year the number of A*-C grades at GCSE saw its sharpest decline since 1998

Public sector workers 17 per cent

Private sector workers 83 per cent

THE NATION OF SCOTLAND

Population 5.4 million

Public spending per head £13,054

Social security 41 per cent: legislation to give the Scottish government control over 11 benefits has been introduced in Holyrood, which the SNP hopes will ease Westminster cuts

Health 21 per cent: only 5 per cent of A&E patients wait more than four hours despite a staffing shortfall and £100 million bill for locum doctors

Education 13 per cent: literacy and numeracy rates have declined or flatlined since 2012 but fewer pupils are leaving school with no qualifications

Public sector workers 21 per cent

Private sector workers 79 per cent

THE NATION OF WALES

Population 3.1 million

Public spending per head £12,531

Social security 46 per cent: Wales’s population is the most deprived in the UK

Health 21 per cent: the Welsh NHS has repeatedly missed targets despite high investment and is suffering from a shortage of full-time nurses

Education 13 per cent: Welsh students score lowest in the UK for science, reading and maths and Carwyn Jones, the first minister, says that the country’s schools are “crumbling”

Public sector workers 20.8 per cent

Private sector workers 79.2 per cent

These figures do clearly show the effect of England’s subsidy to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have more public sector spending on every man, woman and child and they also have a higher level of State employment. All of that is dependent upon the English taxpayer.

It should also be noted that these figures do not include capital spending and that is split in the same sort of way which explains why Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish politicians are so keen on HS2, since as a result of that money being spent in England, they will get extra windfalls of tens of billions of pounds of English taxpayers’ money!

So far as Ulster is concerned, Theresa May’s DUP deal is the latest subsidy windfall for a Province long reliant on the English taxpayer.

As the Times recently put it:-

“The £1.5 billion price tag for the DUP’s confidence and supply deal — equivalent to an extra £530 for every resident of Northern Ireland — has caused raised eyebrows at Westminster and across the rest of the UK.

But in one respect the windfall is nothing new: The Province of Northern Ireland has long received the most generous funding of any region.

Despite its population of just 1.9 million, public spending per person is higher in the province than anywhere else in the UK: £14,042, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Almost a third (27.4 per cent) of the Northern Irish workforce is employed by the public sector, compared to just 17 per cent across the UK as a whole. Tuition fees remain heavily subsidised and prescriptions are free, as is domestic water. Unlike the other devolved administrations, Northern Ireland runs its own social security system but the money flows directly from the Treasury.

This high public spending and low tax revenues means Stormont’s budget deficit — £9.6 billion in 2014 — is equal to a third of Northern Ireland’s total economic output.

Though that figure is vastly higher than most other developed economies, Northern Ireland defies easy comparison for one very obvious reason: “the Troubles”.

As DUP chief whip Sir Jeffrey Donaldson pointed out last week, decades of conflict have posed huge structural challenges for its economy. Resolving the Troubles has in practice meant the Exchequer alone footing the bill in the absence of significant inward investment from the private sector.

Keen to preserve the delicate constitutional settlement at Stormont, Westminster effectively allowed local politicians to refuse to implement the worst cuts in the coalition years. Not for nothing did the Northern Irish historian John Bew say: “The only thing that unites Northern Ireland’s parties is the way they hold out their hands for money. It’s the SNP on crack.”

Though it is hoped that a planned reduction in Northern Ireland’s corporation tax rate to 12.5 per cent next year – in line with the Republic - will help rectify the imbalance in public and private spending, the DUP deal means a long history of state subsidy will continue.”

Saturday, 28 October 2017

I am in the process of Judically Reviewing the Electoral Commission and have succeeded to get Permission to Issue the Judicial Review and the matter is now proceeding to a full hearing.

Below is the text of my witness statement.

What do you think and how do you rate our chances?

1. “ I make this statement in support of the English Democrats’ Application for Judicial Review. The history of the matter is first reiterated in this statement.

2. Introduction

The Respondent, the Electoral Commission, without any express statutory authority, has arrogated to itself not only an alleged implied power but also an alleged implied duty to alter existing registrations on the Statutory Register of Political Parties. They claim that this power/duty empowers them to make alterations without prior consultation with the affected political Parties or with the public and to also delete existing registrations without notice on the basis of their own views. They further claim that this alleged implied power/duty to delete existing registrations is unrestrained by any Equality Act 2010 duties. The Applicant rejects these claims.

3. Background

The Electoral Commission is charged under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 with being the Registrar of the Statutory Register of Political Parties.

A political party which is registered with the Electoral Commission can stand in elections and use one of twelve Descriptions which are registered with the Electoral Commission on its register and use a registered Emblem (aka a logo), but if not registered, or a Description is not registered, or the Emblem is not registered, then that cannot be used on any ballot paper in any election.

The removal of a Description or Emblem from the Register therefore means that the Description or Emblem cannot be used on any ballot paper. Removal therefore, if cavalierly used, has potentially very draconian effect on the ability of a Party to take part in democracy and also curtails the democratic choice available to the electorate.

When it was first set up the Electoral Commission faced accusations that the only reason why the then Labour Government had created such a body was for partisan advantage against the Conservative Party, in particular to try to prevent Lord Ashcroft from continuing to fund the Conservatives.

Perhaps in response to this, the Electoral Commission initially approached its work in a sensitive manner and, so far as the Applicant is aware, did not seek to over-regulate or bully the registered Parties. As part of this approach, if paperwork had not been returned or completed in time, the Electoral Commission generally politely reminded the Applicant of whatever needed to be done.

The Applicant mentions the context of the creation of the Electoral Commission being Labour partisanship. Also the original commissioners themselves were all Establishment figures with, it seems to the Applicant, a distinct bias towards Labour. That approach seems to continue and, in particular in the context of this application, the Party whose interests being protected by the Electoral Commission’s heavy handed approach was Labour in the Batley and Spen by-election. The Applicant is suspicious that this advantage was given deliberately as a product of continuing partisan bias.

The Applicant has already experienced the Electoral Commission’s new heavy handedness, as without prior consultation the Applicant’s Emblem was removed from the Register on the specious grounds the Emblem had more than six words on it and also had a “tick box” for an English Parliament, which is one of the core campaigning issues of the Applicant, as part of its Emblem. This was an Emblem that had been registered for at least 10 years and had given rise to no known complaints or confusions, yet the Electoral Commission took upon itself to remove the Emblem because they decided to change the way they looked at Emblems, without any statutory authorisation for doing so. The Applicant applied for Permission to Issue Judicial Review and obtained it. The Learned Judge in that case pointed out that the Applicant’s case was clearly arguable because there is no expressed statutory authority for the Electoral Commission’s new found regulatory activism and the Order was included in the supporting Bundle.

After the murder of the Labour MP, Jo Cox, in her constituency of Batley & Spen, the Labour Party did not trigger by petition to the Speaker the requisite by-election for months, in order, no doubt, to proceed with its Leadership contest. In the interim the Establishment parties, contrary to all previous practice, announced that they were not going to stand against Labour.

However other parties began to announce that they were going to stand, the first being Liberty GB.

It is the Applicant’s understanding that following the announcement by Liberty GB that they were going to stand, the Electoral Commission unilaterally and without prior consultation removed most of their registered Descriptions; no doubt relying upon the same alleged power/duty that is in contention in this Application. The Applicant believes that the Electoral Commission may well have removed other Descriptions from other Parties as they announced that they wished to stand.

In the case of the Applicant the removal occurred once the Applicant stated that a candidate for the English Democrats would be standing, which was done after a proper period of respect and mourning and after the funeral of Jo Cox.

Following that announcement the Electoral Commission removed the long registered description which contained the words “England worth fighting for!”

The Applicant accepts that there are probably very few people working for the Electoral Commission who are patriots and that they may not like the idea that people will fight for their country, but it is contended that politically partisan Left-Liberal opposition to patriotism does not justify the Electoral Commission in finding that such a description is legally “offensive”, nor, it is contended, does the Electoral Commission have the latent power or latent duty that it contends for.

4. Precis of Grounds of this Application

(i) The Electoral Commission does not expressly or impliedly have the power to retrospectively alter Registered Parties details without agreement from the Registered Party.

(ii) There is no implicit duty for the Electoral Commission to change registrations in accordance with its changing perceptions, or opinions, or otherwise.

(iii) Any proposed amendment to the Register or other changes should only be done after consultation with the relevant registered party and perhaps also only after a public consultation if appropriate, in a manner that is similar to the Commission’s process in registering changes which have been applied for by a Registered Party or other registrant.

(iv) The exercise of any powers, and especially any statutory powers, to alter the Register by the Electoral Commission is subject to the statutory requirement not to discriminate directly or indirectly, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, either on the grounds of nationality, national origin, national identity (in this case specifically “English”) or on the grounds of philosophical belief (in this case specifically “English nationalism”).

5. The Decision

The decision to remove one of the Party’s “descriptions” which is challenged in these proceedings was notified to the applicant in the Electoral Commission’s letter dated the 7th September 2016.

The notification from the Electoral Commission was ex post facto and without prior consultation and stated:-

“I am writing to inform you that under the Commission’s duty to maintain the register of political parties, descriptions and emblems in accordance with the requirements of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), we have conducted a review of your party identifiers. This has resulted in one of your party descriptions being removed from the register for reasons of not meeting the statutory requirements of s.28A PPERA.

The review was carried out as part of the Commission considering the register in the context of the forthcoming Batley and Spen UK Parliamentary by-election (date to be announced), taking into account the likely impact on voters there of the tragic circumstances that have caused the need for a by-election. Your party has announced that they will be standing a candidate in this by-election.

The law requires the Commission to form an opinion on whether an identity mark would be ‘offensive’ and we consider this test in terms of voters exercising their democratic right to vote without encountering offensive material on the ballot paper.

The review identified that the following registered party description is in the opinion of the Commission offensive.

“English Democrats – England Worth Fighting For!”

The Commission has removed the above description from the register of political parties for Great Britain.

We considered the description offensive in the context of the forthcoming by-election in that the description could reasonably be perceived as a call to, or condoning, violent means to further a particular political view.”

6. The Challenge

This was challenged in the English Democrats’ letter of the 12th September, in which the English Democrats stated:-

“For the record we do not accept that the Electoral Commission has the legal right to do this to existing registrations. Also your decision is manifestly absurd and unreasonable and also repugnantly offensive to any patriotic English people.” A protocol letter was sent on the 12th September 2016 which challenged the removal decision on the grounds that the registered “description” has remained unchanged since it was registered. There is no relevant statutory provision or requirement for the Electoral Commission to disallow our description once registered and accordingly it is ultra vires for the Electoral Commission to do so. The English Democrats object to any change or removal of its description.

The Electoral Commission responded in their letter of the 15th September:-

“The Commission and your party are not in agreement on this matter. That is of course regrettable, but I trust you will understand that the Commission must discharge its statutory role on party registration in the manner it considers proper and lawful.” And the Electoral Commission further responded on the 21st September:-

“6. The Electoral Commission (‘the Commission’) has considered carefully each point in the letter before claim. The Commission disagrees that its decision is wrong in law on the grounds stated or at all. The Commission is confident that the decision was made properly in accordance with the relevant statutory tests, was a reasonable one and that it has given the Party sufficient explanation of its decision in its letter of 13 September 2016. The Commission will strongly defend any challenge to its decision on the basis of the matters set out in the letter.

Legislative provisions in PPERA relating to party registration, and how the Commission carries out its role

7. Under section 23 PPERA, the Commission is responsible for maintaining the register of political parties that intend to contest all relevant elections. The Commission’s duties in this respect are not limited to the consideration of an application for registration only and the duty is a continuous one.

8. If a political party wishes to use a description on a ballot paper, that description must be registered under Section 28A PPERA in accordance with the statutory criteria set out in. One of the statutory criteria, section 28A(2)(c) requires that the Commission shall not register a description which in the Commission’s opinion is offensive.

9. In discharge of its function to maintain the register in the context of the Batley and Spen by-election expected to take place on 20 October 2016, the Commission carried out a review of the register to ensure it continued to meet the legislative requirements. The outcome of that review was that in the Commission’s opinion the description was offensive and fell within the section 28A(2)(c). Accordingly it was required to discontinue the inclusion of the description from the register.

10. The Commission notified its decision to the Claimant on 13 September 2016. In that letter the Commission explained in sufficient detail its response for the discontinuance. It explained that it had undertaken a review of the Register in the context of the forthcoming Batley and Spen UK Parliamentary by-election. It explained that the review took account of the tragic and violent circumstances leading to the death of the sitting MP Jo Cox which necessitated a by election and the likely impact on voters in that constituency of this. The review took account of the fact the claimant had confirmed its intention to stand a candidate at that election and thus the potential of using the description in the by election. The review considered that the existence of the description of the ballot paper as possibly a call to violence to further a particular political view could be regarded as offensive.

11. As a result the description was removed from the register. Not to remove the description would have resulted the Commission being charged with failing in its duties under section 23 PPERA and the non-compliance with s 28(A)(2)(c).

12. The Claimant states that the description was not offensive yet provides no support for this assertion. In any event, the Commission is required to form its own view on whether a party identifier is offensive and cannot substitute its opinion with that of another.

13. The Claimant states that the removal of the description amounts to unlawful discrimination against ‘English nationalism and against all patriotic individual English people to claim that it is offensive’. The Claimant’s opinion on discrimination cannot be taken into account by the Commission for reasons given above in paragraph 12. Further discrimination is not part of any statutory test set out in section 28 (A)(2) PPERA and accordingly must be disregarded as an irrelevant factor in deciding whether the description was allowed to continue on the register.

Decision making process

14. The Commission’s position is that no consultation or appeal with a Party is required or would serve any purpose where the continued existence of a description on the register can reasonably be regarded as unlawful in the context of the forthcoming by elections. This is not a case where the Commission was proposing a change of policy meriting consultation, this was a case where the Commission had no option but to discontinue the inclusion of the offensive description in order to meet the requirements of section 23 and 28(A)(2 PPERA. As regulator, the Commission is required to maintain a register of political party names and associated descriptions that complies with the law. A delay by the Commission in taking its decision in order to provide an opportunity of appeal in these circumstances is not a ground that would justify a departure from its statutory and regulatory duties.

15. The decision does not affect the Claimant’s ability to stand candidates under its party name, using the party name or any of the other party descriptions or emblems in this or future elections. It further does not prevent the Claimant or its candidates from expressing views as part of any campaign or how they present their campaign material.

16. The Commission has advised the Claimant that it may register another description and it has waived the fee for this should the Claimant apply to do so before the end of the month….

20. The letter before claim shows no arguable basis upon which a successful legal challenge may be brought. Accordingly, the Commission will strongly defend any challenge to its decision on the basis of the matters you set out in your letter before claim and reserves the right to seek a court order for costs in any such challenge. In light of the above, we invite you to reconsider your position. 7. The Response

The Applicant therefore responded on the 27th September as follows:-

“Your response clearly flies in the face of the Judge’s decision in the previous Judicial Review Permission to Issue Application (a copy of which is enclosed herewith for your ease of reference), in which it was made clear that our point was self-evidently arguable, in that you have no explicit statutory authority for altering, in effect retrospectively, the Register. This would be hardly surprising to any English lawyer since it is a fundamental precept of English Common Law. It is also a fundamental Tenet of Administrative Law that you (consult) prior to making a decision.”

The Commission responded on the 5th October by email:-

“I acknowledge receipt of both of your letters dated the 27th and received by the Commission on 29 September 2016 which will be considered by the Commission.” The Commission responded again on the 18th October 2016:-

“We do not share your view that there is an issue of retrospectivity and do not accept your suggestion that we have altered the Register retrospectively. Rather the issue is whether there is a power to alter the register. The Commission is satisfied that the legislation provides such a power particularly that the legislation sets out a duty on the Commission to maintain a register that is compliant with the law. The full Response is set out in tis Pre Action Protocol Response letter of 21 September 2016.

You refer to a need to obtain consent prior to taking a decision. The Commission is not required – nor would it be appropriate – to obtain consent prior to the discharge of its public law functions. Again, the full response is set out in my letter of 21 September 2016.

You refer to a previous claim for judicial review which you did not wish to pursue as you withdrew your claim. Quite properly we have considered the issues you raised in your letter before claim on its own merits and without reference to and independent to your previous claim. I emphasise the decision taken to remove the description in this case was taken in the context and circumstances set out in the letter to you of 7 September and further set out in Pre Action Protocol Response letter of 21 September and has no bearing to the matters set out in your previous claim.”

8. Costs

a) The Costs of the Application for Permission

As regards the costs of the Application for Permission to Judicial Review the Applicant sought agreement to issue in its letters of the 27th September:-

“Your response clearly flies in the face of the Judge’s decision in the previous Judicial Review Permission to Issue Application (a copy of which is enclosed herewith for your ease of reference), in which it was made clear that our point was self-evidently arguable, in that you have no explicit statutory authority for altering, in effect retrospectively, the Register. This would be hardly surprising to any English lawyer since it is a fundamental precept of English Common Law. It is also a fundamental Tenet of Administrative Law that you consent prior to making a decision.

In the circumstances we respectfully request that you agree Permission to Issue Judicial Review should be granted. In the absence of such agreement we propose to place our letter before the Court with the request that you be ordered to pay Indemnity Costs and 10% additional sum on such costs pursuant to Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.”

and 24th October:-

“The point is that in our last Application for Judicial Review is that the Judge made it clear that the question of the legality of your alleged power or duty to alter the register is arguable. It follows that permission to issue Judicial Review in this case will be granted. It is on that basis that you should consent to permission to Judicial Review being issued. Failure to do so is, with respect, an improper misuse of public funds on your part. Accordingly please reconsider our offer.”

In the premises the Applicant sought Indemnity costs of the Application for Permission.

b) Judicial Review Costs

Further to avoid costs threats from the Electoral Commission with the aim of trying to deter a challenge by threatening attrition the Applicant seeks a cap on the recoverable costs on the basis that this case should be treated as being a “Small Claim” with regards to the recoverability of legal costs and wrote accordingly on the 31st October:-

“Leaving that to one side, will you agree a cap on your recoverable fees in the event that you successfully defend the Judicial Review?

We would propose that the matter be treated from the costs point of view as a Small Claim with court fees and fixed fees being the only recoverable costs. Please let us have your response.”

The Electoral Commission responded on the 7th November:-

“Where the Commission is successful in litigation, it is our policy to seek the full amount of costs recoverable.

We do not agree to any cap on the Commission’s costs in the event that you issue proceedings”.

The Applicant therefore seeks an Order capping the Recoverable Costs of the Judicial Review.

9. Discrimination

All statutory bodies, including the Commission, are required to have regard to the Equalities Act 2010. The Commission implicitly admits it has not done so in claiming exemption without quoting any authority for such an exemption.

The decision challenged herein is directly or indirectly discriminatory against the English Democrats as an English “national” organisation and against English nationalism as a system of belief. By comparison it is inconceivable that the Commission would take any equivalent action against Scottish or Welsh nationalists. This is not therefore a “reasonable” decision from a legal point of view as it breaches discrimination law.

Furthermore the Commission appears to have been acting in a manner which was calculated both to advantage Labour in the Batley and Spen By-election and disadvantage any challengers as they not only took the decision herein challenged against the Applicant but also did likewise against the other parties that declared an intention to stand in that by-election.

10.The European Convention

In addition to the general English legal and constitutional points it seems for completeness worth mentioning that an attempt to change an existing provision in what amounts to a “licence” would appear to be prima facie in breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). It appears that there is here an attempt to remove a licence to use an existing emblem without any of the justifications required under this Protocol. Nor would there appear to be any express legal provision which any presumed derogation from the general principles of the Protocol could apply to.

11. I now turn to matters subsequent to the issue of the Application for Permission. When this matter came on for its first oral hearing it was listed before Mr Justice Ousely on 29th June 2017 who pointed out that the Respondent, the Electoral Commission, on the basis of their case arguably should have restored the Description that they had removed once the alleged circumstances for its removal, namely the Batley & Spen By-election, had been concluded. He therefore directed that the Respondent should file a Witness Statement explaining why they had not reinstated it, which is why the statement of Mr Posner was filed. This statement adopts inconsistent claims:- 1) that there is no power for the Electoral Commission to restore a Description that they have removed without a formal application by the English Democrats. Whereas by contrast 2) they are claiming a power to remove it without a formal application or indeed any application or any consent by the English Democrats, indeed without any consultation, or prior notice, or right of appeal.

12. I would refer to the relevant correspondence for this period up until the next hearing which was listed before Mr Justice Gilbart on 21st September 2017. He granted permission to Judicial Review pointing out that, not only were the Electoral Commission claiming the right to remove Emblems and Descriptions as they have done in the case of the English Democrats without prior notice, consultation, right of appeal, or what I would suggest are the rules of natural justice, but seemed also to have oddly decided to define the word “fighting” as only meaning violence. In fact we all talk about “fighting Cancer”, “fighting electoral campaigns”, “fighting the good fight” for Christians, “fighting for life” for the seriously injured, etc., etc.

But he also wasn’t allowing the separate ground of Discrimination as that was subsumed under the grounds of rationality. Of those three permitted grounds I would therefore say as follows:-

14.Vires

a) The Applicant clearly stated that we considered that the decision both in this case and in the previous case relating to the removal of the English Democrats long-standing emblem that there were decisions that were made ultra vires because there is no express power to vary existing registrations without the consent usually given in the form of a formal application and payment of a fee to alter the registered emblem, or descriptions.

b) There is of course a very limited right of refusal to register emblems or descriptions based on whether it is probably thought that the proposed registration was illegal or if it would create confusion amongst voters. The former point is obvious that we could not have parties able to register descriptions that were, for example, a clear incitement of violence against a defined group. So far as the confusion point is concerned, this is somewhat more subjective. Therefore the decision may not be taken based upon fully objective evidence, but it naturally arises from the fact that registration of party names is only considered necessary as a result of what seemed to be a deliberate attempt to mislead voters into voting for the “Literal Democrats” rather than the Liberal Democrats at an election back in the late 1990’s. Prior to that incident there was no registration of party names, descriptions or emblems. There is therefore no traditional common law principle that applies that would support the Electoral Commission’s position.

c) The basic nature of English law is that an Englishman or Englishwoman has the unfettered right to do anything that is not expressly forbidden by law, which of course is in stark contrast to the so-called “civil” law systems on the continent which are derived from the tyrannies of Justinian’s Constantinople or Napolean’s France. “Civil” Law prohibits “citizens” from doing anything where they do not have the State’s permission to do it. Therefore in England every statute is a removal of an aspect of a citizen’s liberty and that is the basis of the common law rule that all such restrictions have to be express. The Electoral Commission is claiming the right to take away not only the pre-existing common law right of political self-description, but also even the rights which have been accrued by registration without there having been anything expressly stated in the statute which says they have the right to do that.

d) The Electoral Commission are not the police and therefore do not have police responsibilities or duties or systems of accountability. This purported right is therefore in my opinion somewhat equivalent to the registers kept by local planning authorities of registered planning permission. If the planners purported to be able to remove approved planning rights because the planning permission no longer fitted their current planning guide-lines, that would be a clear cut and illegal abuse of their position. Of course planning law was originally imposed upon for property owners to expropriate the general common law right of development of land in an analogous way to the Electoral Commission’s expropriation of the Common Law rights of political descriptions and political emblems which have been part of electioneering in England since at least the time of John Wilkes. The Electoral Commission are furthermore claims that the right to make such decisions based upon, in effect, their own personal and subjective feelings. There was so far as I am aware no evidence taken or any other objective method or even any proper criteria of assessing the description which was applied in this decision making process.

15.Rationality

a) I believe that the Electoral Commission have acted out of their own personal political prejudices and not on any statutory or even objectively justified basis. The English Democrats are not by any common-sense criteria “extremist”, or even in any reasonable sense “far-right”. On the contrary we are democrats who want to see England’s political future and democracy properly protected. We campaigned for many years for “an English Parliament, First Minister and Government with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a federal UK”. In the last few years we have shifted towards campaigning for English Independence to put us fully on a par with the independence campaigns of the Scottish National Party for Scotland and Plaid Cymru for Wales. The English Democrats Party have never campaigned in a way that is anything other than “fighting” the political campaign in the normal, proper, legal and democratic way. Any suggestion to the contrary from the Electoral Commission is bitterly resented. Indeed it wouldn’t be too much to say that such an imputation is downright offensive!

b) The linkage with the Batley & Spen By-election is a little difficult to understand on any rational basis since the murderer of Jo Cox is of Scottish origin and is alleged to have said “Britain First” whilst attacking her. He also appears to be somebody with a long history of mental illness and to have been acting entirely alone. It would therefore seem that the English Democrats’ Description which was removed (“England worth fighting for!”) would be something that Thomas Mair would have (perhaps violently) have opposed!

c) The English Democrats Party is a democratic nationalist party and there is no instance of English democratic nationalists engaging in political violence.

d) In fact the parties that have engaged in political violence are either of the far-left or of far-right British nationalist parties.

e) It might be said that the English Defence League has been involved in some fighting. I would say firstly that the English Defence League, despite the word “English” being used, is not really about English nationalism at all, its focus and the focus of its former Leader, Stephen Lennon aka “Tommy Robinson”, is campaigning against Islamisation and Islamists and of course Islamic linked rape gangs, etc. which the authorities had simply failed to deal with. At no point, to my knowledge, has any representative of the English Defence League talked in terms of calling for an English Parliament or for English independence.

f) Indeed the English Defence League’s spokesmen when they do talk about national politics at all are very prone to confusing the word “English” with the word “British” which no English nationalist would do.

g) It should also be noted that despite some loutish and boorish behaviour by EDL demonstrators it has almost always in fact been, despite misleading media reports to the contrary, the internationalist/Marxist far-left !Antifa! (anti-fascist) activists who have been the attackers and who seem to set out with the intention of “fighting” in the way contended for by the Respondent herein.

h) It is a curiosity that the far-left should be in support of Islamism when it seems obvious from a common-sense point of view that Islamism is a profoundly conservative form of Islam and therefore in most respects the most hostile to the far-left. However the Far-Left seem to welcome anything which they think may undermine the Nation State or bring revolution to the “West”.

i) As can be seen from the correspondence I agreed to do an application to re-register the Description “England worth fighting for”. This was agreed on the basis that the Respondent would not take the point as to whether there was any implicit concession that a formal application was required. In fact they did exactly what I was anticipating which was to confirm their irrational stance that it is “offensive” to say that “England was worth fighting for”.

j) In my view this is a very standard left-wing position in which the aim of their politics is to undermine the idea of nations and of nation states. On the basis of my experience with the Electoral Commission I thought it highly probable that they would consider that the very idea of England being worth trying to protect would be “offensive”.

k) In my respectful opinion that is not a proper position for the Electoral Commission to take in law. As a bureaucracy given charge of dealing with the registration of political parties, they are not entitled to take into account their own political biases. They should have to behave in a manner that has objective justification. They have taken into account matters that they are not entitled to take into account and have failed to deal with this whole matter on the basis of objectivity and rationality rather than bias and prejudice.

l) The point of introducing Tony Linsell’s witness statement on English nationalism is to point out the essential reasonableness and common-sense basis of English nationalism which to be fair 50 years ago would have simply seemed to be pointing out things that were common-sense. Then of course that was before the Marxist’s Lefts “long march through the institutions” which has enabled their hatred of nation states and of patriotism to cloud the issue.

m) The approach taken by the Electoral Commission is therefore direct or indirect discrimination, since it is directly against English nationalists but it is also indirectly against all English people, since English people are far more likely to feel that they are in favour of campaigning, fighting, etc. for England than other types of people would be.

n) The Electoral Commission’s letter of refusal is dated of the 19th September 2017 and is stated to be from Josh Dunne, “Senior Registration Advisor”, inter alia, it says:-

“I regret to inform you that we have refused your application to register “English Democrats – England worth fighting for!”.

The law requires the Commission to form an opinion as to whether a party description is offensive and to refuse to grant an application for such a description to be registered. We came to the decision that your description is OFFENSIVE.

We have taken this decision after careful consideration. We note in particular:-

1. A current social and political context in which politically or ideologically motivated violent attacks have occurred in the UK.

2. The link is the description between “fighting” and “England”; the phrase “fighting for” is used in a different context in the description than other instances of its use on the register. We note that there have been instances of violence that have been linked to English nationalism.

We concluded that the description could likely be read as condoning potentially violent action to further a political aim, and that voters would find that offensive.”

o) No Instances are given which corroborate the Electoral Commission’s bald assertions of violence or any threat of violence as regarding English nationalists. That is because there are none.

p) The decision is explicitly taken because of the linkage between fighting and England which is not only irrational, discriminatory and offensive to English Nationalists, but is even more explicitly so when it is considered alongside what other descriptions mentioning fighting have been allowed on the Electoral Commission’s register.

q) I had a search done on the Electoral Commission’s website on the 14th October 2017 to see other usages of the word “fighting” or “fight” which there are registered.

r) The search used the Electoral Commission’s own search engine, so I do not vouch that this is an exhaustive list. The one that provides the clearest comparator is the Welsh “People First” Party who have a reported description:- “Fighting for Wales”. It would appear that using the meaning contended for by the Electoral Commission that fighting only means violence that “Fighting for Wales” is permitted but “Fighting for England” is not. I would submit that no clearer instance of illegal discrimination contrary to the Equality Act could be found. It would seem that the Electoral Commission are happy for Welsh nationalists to fight for Wales but not English nationalists to fight for England – despite the fact that it is actually undeniably true that Welsh nationalists have actually used violent means but English nationalists have not.

s) The extreme leftist Revolutionary Communist Party Britain (Marxist Leninist) is permitted the description:- “Fight for an anti-war government”. Leaving aside the irony implicit in such a description it would seem that the Electoral Commission are happy to have people violently fighting for an anti-war government. It would appear that the Electoral Commission are happy for communists, who after all have historically killed hundreds of millions of people, to fight for their sort of government but not English nationalists to fight.

t) Then we have the Socialist Equality Party which are allowed two descriptions mentioning fighting:- “Your future your fight!” and “Join the fight for social equality!”.

u) Then we have the Scottish Socialist Party which has been allowed the description of:- “Fight the cuts”.

v) Then the Marylebone Residents Party which has the description:- “Fighting for spaces for people”.

w) Even the British National Party is allowed to mention fighting. In this case:- “Fighting unsustainable housing because we care”.

16.Lack of Consultation

a) In neither this case, nor the previous one relating to our emblem, was there any prior consultation or prior notification before the decision to remove was taken. Also no right of appeal or of recommendation has been offered. In my view not only have the Electoral Commission failed to act reasonably and within the proper bounds of their discretions, but also their action is not fair. They are asserting a right to make decisions without there being any effective complaints procedure which allows an aggrieved party to pursue a substantive challenge to the conclusions that they come to, only because the Electoral Commission is implicitly assuming that their decision making processes are so effective that their decision will always in effect be unimpeachable. I do not consider that to be either a rational or a fair process. It is unfair for there to not be any ability on the part of the English Democrats or any other party adversely affected by the Electoral Commission’s use of their purported power, to challenge the decision therefore the procedure is unfair.

b) In this case there is no express power conferred by Parliament. The Electoral Commission is arguing for an implicit power from which it would follow that if there was such an implicit power there should also be the usual presumption that such power would be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances. Since there is no express statutory basis of the power or discretion, the Electoral Commission are, I believe, in effect arguing for an implied power of discretion which is untrammelled and unrestricted by any procedural requirements either prospectively, of consultation or retrospectively either of appeal or of making representations to reinstate. This is why they gave no opportunity to the Applicant to make representations either before or after the decision was taken and also did not pro-actively give any indication either that such a decision was going to be made or what items were allegedly being weighed up in making the decisions. This is therefore an extreme case of non-consultation by an administrative statutory body.”